Rubin is correct in what he said, and he said it incredibly succintly for any devleoper who cares about openness. if i want to take android and run it on a slate i'm building, i can do so.

Except your device is really not worth a damn to anyone but yourself if you can't meet Google's Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition and agree to bundle Google's closed software and market. What use is an Android device to the masses if it can't access Google's services, the Market in particular?

Quote:

If i want to run it on my PC i could take it and make it do that. It's open. It's not under the control of a company like Apple. You as a someone who wants to use it can use it on somtehing you control. Precisely the same as linux.

That's not what I am arguing. My beef is that Rubin is claiming the enormous benefits of openness, as if the fact some nerd can compile the project somehow gives it a great advantage over Apple's offering. This is not better than all those Linux freaks back in the day who claimed Windows was DOOMED because they could compile their own kernel.

To quote Gruber: "That’s a compelling argument for about 0.01 percent of the population."

The end result, the Android platform, is no more "open" than what Apple is offering. For Rubin to counter Jobs' recent attack on Android with some bullshit about openness was 100% marketing tripe.

Quote:

Your lack of understanding of these issues is your own damn fault dwell.

Your refusal to comprehend the actual argument, ignore posts that clearly spell it out, and harp the unrelated fact that the Android core codebase is "open" is your own damn fault, Metasyntactic.

Rubin is correct in what he said, and he said it incredibly succintly for any devleoper who cares about openness. if i want to take android and run it on a slate i'm building, i can do so.

Except your device is really not worth a damn to anyone but yourself if you can't meet Google's Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition and agree to bundle Google's closed software and market. What use is an Android device to the masses if it can't access Google's services, the Market in particular?

Quote:

If i want to run it on my PC i could take it and make it do that. It's open. It's not under the control of a company like Apple. You as a someone who wants to use it can use it on somtehing you control. Precisely the same as linux.

That's not what I am arguing. My beef is that Rubin is claiming the enormous benefits of openness, as if the fact some nerd can compile the project somehow gives it a great advantage over Apple's offering.

The end result, the Android platform, is no more "open" than what Apple is offering. For Rubin to counter Jobs' recent attack on Android with some bullshit about openness was 100% marketing tripe.

Quote:

Your lack of understanding of these issues is your own damn fault dwell.

Your refusal to comprehend the actual argument, ignore posts that clearly spell it out, and harp the unrelated fact that the Android core codebase is "open" is your own damn fault, Metasyntactic.

How is someone putting Android into a product like a GPS, set top box, control unit, remote control vehicle, you name it, not a benefit to the masses? None of those things need the Market or Google services.

Shit, in my fairly niche field, all the field recording gear was based around windows mobile, and it was horrendous. There are already freeware mapping apps out on Android that are far more useful than WM5 crap ever was. I look forward to the next release of field gear based on something as flexible as Android. There isn't going to be any iOS gear, that's for sure.

What does that have to do with trying to pretend that the Amazon MP3 Store app is crapware but the iTunes app isn't?

Who's trying to pretend anything? If I buy an *Apple* device should I be surprised to see a link to *Apple's* music store on that device?

If I buy a device not made by Amazon, should I be surprised find an Amazon service pre-installed on the device? Absolutely. It's at the very least bundleware if "crapware" is too strong a term for you to handle.

Granted, it's among the least offensive of the bundled apps installed on Android devices (it's one of the few third-party apps included on the base N1 install) but it's still bundled third-party software that you cannot remove.

What does that have to do with trying to pretend that the Amazon MP3 Store app is crapware but the iTunes app isn't?

Who's trying to pretend anything? If I buy an *Apple* device should I be surprised to see a link to *Apple's* music store on that device?

If I buy a device not made by Amazon, should I be surprised find an Amazon service pre-installed on the device? Absolutely. It's at the very least bundleware if "crapware" is too strong a term for you to handle.

Granted, it's among the least offensive of the bundled apps installed on Android devices (it's one of the few third-party apps included on the base N1 install) but it's still bundled third-party software that you cannot remove.

The Amazon MP3 app is part of what makes Android "open" versus iOS "closed". See Android consumers have a choice of where they purchase their music from on their phones. It's not a vertically integrated fantasy land where every purchase helps Jobs build a new castle.

Granted, it's among the least offensive of the bundled apps installed on Android devices (it's one of the few third-party apps included on the base N1 install) but it's still bundled third-party software that you cannot remove.

dwell, the problem is that you classify "crapware" as defined by what party making the software (first vs third), not by its level of quality or appropriateness. That's a definition that's biased toward companies engaged in the integrated model like Apple.

Take who makes the software out of it, and judge it just by quality and appropriateness.

I also have to agree with dwell, at least w.r.t Android's paradox of openness and its overall marketing message. Android may be open at the core or outset, but the end-result is what matters, and the end-result is often closed up or locked down in many ways, some small and some significant. This wouldn't matter much, except that Google is hyping Android's openness hugely as a marketing point, and a great positive in opposition to Apple "closed" ecosystem (which is as biased a term as Jobs' "fragmented" - what they really mean is "more controlled.")

That deserves to be examined critically, because the end-result of what's sold in stores is what the vast majority of people will actually be using. The number of people who actually compile their own version of Android on their own phone are a tiny, tiny insignificant minority.

The Amazon MP3 app is part of what makes Android "open" versus iOS "closed". See Android consumers have a choice of where they purchase their music from on their phones. It's not a vertically integrated fantasy land where every purchase helps Jobs build a new castle.

I agree with that and also find it hypocitical that Apple allows that Kindle app but (I assume) disallows the Amazon MP3.

By the same token, I would wager that the Amazon MP3 icon disappears from future Android revs as soon as Google rolls out their music store.

dwell, the problem is that you classify "crapware" as defined by what party making the software (first vs third), not by its level of quality or appropriateness. That's a definition that's biased toward companies engaged in the integrated model like Apple.

Fair enough and I've agreed to tone it down to "bundleware" if people take exception with the term crapware. But make no mistake, there is indefensible crapware on these devices.

Then, again, by that definition Linux is closed. After all, tivo has taken it and used its *openness* to build their own system, and then put it in their boxes. Think about all the cases where Android is completely open (not that you even need to show this to demonstrate openness). Take it and put it on a device you want to build. Take it and put it on your PC if you want. Take it and make a netbook distro. Make it run on slates or whatever.

I think here we come down to it. Some people are talking about the openness of the software projects themselves, others are talking about the openness of specific implementations of them. So based on this can we say:

Linux is open, but Tivo is closed.Android is open, but the Samsung Fascinate is closed.

Is this something we can all agree on? So that we can drop this pointless line of discussion?

Crazy, right? With the impossible-to-ignore iPad starting at just $499 (and just $630 in Verizon's own stores when bundled with a MiFi), America's largest carrier is actually planning to hawk Samsung's Galaxy Tab for... $599.99. It's an almost unbelievable price point, and unlike the legions of netbooks that Big Red offers, there looks to be zero subsidization available. The Android 2.2-based unit (which will be loaded down with V CAST apps) will hit retail on November 11th, and since it's being sold at full price, a data plan (which starts at $20 per month for 1GB) is completely optional. Good luck to you both -- we're dead serious about y'all needing it.

The Amazon MP3 app is part of what makes Android "open" versus iOS "closed". See Android consumers have a choice of where they purchase their music from on their phones. It's not a vertically integrated fantasy land where every purchase helps Jobs build a new castle.

I agree with that and also find it hypocitical that Apple allows that Kindle app but (I assume) disallows the Amazon MP3.

By the same token, I would wager that the Amazon MP3 icon disappears from future Android revs as soon as Google rolls out their music store.

Well the Amazon MP3 app is not part of the native Froyo build, it may be added by the consumer but it's not a default install. I'm expecting Amazon MP3 to compete with Google's forthcoming cloud music subscription, etc.

A question regarding the iOS4 multitasking capability. Can you run Slacker Radio in the background whilst browsing the web etc?

Crazy, right? With the impossible-to-ignore iPad starting at just $499 (and just $630 in Verizon's own stores when bundled with a MiFi), America's largest carrier is actually planning to hawk Samsung's Galaxy Tab for... $599.99. It's an almost unbelievable price point, and unlike the legions of netbooks that Big Red offers, there looks to be zero subsidization available. The Android 2.2-based unit (which will be loaded down with V CAST apps) will hit retail on November 11th, and since it's being sold at full price, a data plan (which starts at $20 per month for 1GB) is completely optional. Good luck to you both -- we're dead serious about y'all needing it.

Maybe the Steve was on to something with his rant.

They are assuming that the Galaxy S's success in the phone market will rub off on the 7" pad market. That's not something that can be taken for granted. Presumably there's enough early adopters to make it viable.

Rubin is correct in what he said, and he said it incredibly succintly for any devleoper who cares about openness. if i want to take android and run it on a slate i'm building, i can do so.

Except your device is really not worth a damn to anyone but yourself if you can't meet Google's Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition and agree to bundle Google's closed software and market.

Um... wut? How on earth is that true? For someone who has no interest in google's software, why would i care about such limitations. Android is useful for me wanting to not have to rebuild an entire platform to get off the ground. But it's like saying i shouldn't care about Linux just because i can't use a few KDE apps or something. Again, a specious line of reasoning.

Quote:

Quote:

If i want to run it on my PC i could take it and make it do that. It's open. It's not under the control of a company like Apple. You as a someone who wants to use it can use it on somtehing you control. Precisely the same as linux.

That's not what I am arguing. My beef is that Rubin is claiming the enormous benefits of openness,

There are enormous benefits of openness. That's one of the major reasons that Android has done so well. It's a great platform that anyone can take and transform into something useful for them and their devices. Want to create a new phone/slate/tv/netbook/toaster/whatever? Really, you can go off and do what he said. Go get the source and bang on it until it's what you want.

Quote:

as if the fact some nerd can compile the project somehow gives it a great advantage over Apple's offering.

It has nothing to do with a nerd compiling it. Again this is you looking at the world with dwell glasses. It has to do with Verizon being able to compile it. With Sony being able to compile it. With any frigging hardware maker able to compile it. That's a tremendous benefit of Open. None of these companies wuld be able to do the same with Apple. Furthermore, even if Apple were to partner with one of them, they'd likely not have the ability to make any changes due to Apple's control. However, because Android is so Open they can do just that.

Quote:

This is not better than all those Linux freaks back in the day who claimed Windows was DOOMED because they could compile their own kernel.

Who said anythign about doomed. You were complaining about what Rubin said, and what he said was spot on. Note: what he says also applies to linux and is one of the reasons it too is so popular across a wide range of devices (INCLUDING ANDROID). The argument isn't that being Open will kill iOS or will take Android to the top. The argument is that being Open, and having the ability to go straight from teh source to the device you're building is extremely valuable. And the argument is 100% correct.

Quote:

To quote Gruber: "That’s a compelling argument for about 0.01 percent of the population."

Bullshit. Android's openness allowed it to get onto a huge number of devices across a wide range of manufacturers and carriers. That's hugely compelling for that large percentage of the population that is picking Android phones.

Quote:

The end result, the Android platform, is no more "open" than what Apple is offering.

Ok Dwell. I would like to build a new TV platform. I would like to not have to build the OS myself. Can i legally get the source to Android and modify it so that it will work on my new TV platform? Yes/No. Can i legally get the source to iOS to use on my new TV platform Yes/No? Can i legally distribute my TV with Android on it? Yes/No. Can i legally distribute my TV with iOS on it? Yes/No.

With iOS you only get it on devices that Apple has chosen to build and is blessing with their presense. Due to Android's openness, you're seeing it on whatever device a hardware company wants to put it on. That's why it's getting such broad penetration and why it will likely well outsell Apple. Does Apple care? Probably not. Their margins are still good and their growth is excellent.

Quote:

Quote:

Your lack of understanding of these issues is your own damn fault dwell.

Your refusal to comprehend the actual argument,

I understand it just fine. And i've pointed out why it's wrong.

Quote:

ignore posts that clearly spell it out,

Wait, wut? What posts have i ignored. I will gladly respond to them now.

Quote:

and harp the unrelated fact that the Android core codebase is "open" is your own damn fault,

What does that have to do with trying to pretend that the Amazon MP3 Store app is crapware but the iTunes app isn't?

Who's trying to pretend anything? If I buy an *Apple* device should I be surprised to see a link to *Apple's* music store on that device?

If I buy a device not made by Amazon, should I be surprised find an Amazon service pre-installed on the device? Absolutely. It's at the very least bundleware if "crapware" is too strong a term for you to handle.

Fine. But Apple itself partakes in bundleware all the time. And you've repeatedly given them a pass for it. As i mentioned before, i have absolutely no interest in the game center thingy on my iPhone. But i can't get rid of it. The best i can do is try to bury it in a folder somewhere. Why is bundleware from apple ok, but not ok from iPhone?

Quote:

Granted, it's among the least offensive of the bundled apps installed on Android devices (it's one of the few third-party apps included on the base N1 install) but it's still bundled third-party software that you cannot remove.

Again, your argument is cirulcar. Apple is ok because they don't put on bundleware, because bundleware is defined as 'third party' and as apple isn't third party anything they add isn't bundleware. Your argument is predicated on the concept that it's impossible for Apple to do what you're talking about, while anyone who takes android is virtually guaranteed to do it. Apple can literally do not wrong using your definitions, and anyone else will only do wrong.

Note: this goes back to your hugodrax style trolling that you engaged in before. I bet if Google comes out with stricter rules (say, in order to use their App suite) you will say *SEE!! I'ts NOT OPEN!! IT'S ALL UNDER THE CONTROL OF TEH GOOG!!". You've set things up so that if you don't get what you want, then Google is at fault, and if you do get what you want, then Google is still at fault.

Um... wut? How on earth is that true? For someone who has no interest in google's software, why would i care about such limitations.

My only concern are the Android products that compete with Apple products. If you're writing an Android-powered Geiger counter, best of luck to you. I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand or how it relates to Rubin's rebuttal. I can write a Darwin-powered product today, but you don't see me or Jobs running around claiming iOS is open.

Quote:

There are enormous benefits of openness. That's one of the major reasons that Android has done so well. It's a great platform that anyone can take and transform into something useful for them and their devices. Want to create a new phone/slate/tv/netbook/toaster/whatever? Really, you can go off and do what he said. Go get the source and bang on it until it's what you want.

That's the pie-in-the-sky version of the story. Reality is, only multi-billion dollar companies are using Android for these purposes. They are getting access to code and resources that you and I cannot access (see Hewitt's rant). They are writing a bunch of propriety code, key to their version of Android and not contributing it back to the OHA. So, essentially Android is a bootstrap for them to write their closed, proprietary implementations. In the end, it's really no different than what Apple is doing with iOS. They used the Darwin code to bootstrap their development and piled a bunch of close, proprietary code on top of it.

Quote:

Who said anythign about doomed. You were complaining about what Rubin said, and what he said was spot on.

Best you can say is Rubin was technically correct but entirely deceitful and misleading in how it applies to competition in the mobile market.

Quote:

Ok Dwell. I would like to build a new TV platform. I would like to not have to build the OS myself. Can i legally get the source to Android and modify it so that it will work on my new TV platform? Yes/No. Can i legally get the source to iOS to use on my new TV platform Yes/No? Can i legally distribute my TV with Android on it? Yes/No. Can i legally distribute my TV with iOS on it? Yes/No.

You keep arguing the same stupid fucking point nobody cares about. Yes the Android core is open. No shit.

What truly amazes me dwell is how you can be so dismissive of one of the most important aspects of android, and arguably the aspect that has allowed it to be so successful. It's precisely because it's Open that everyone's been able to jump in and get in on the action. it's precisely because it's open that its' been able to brought onto such a wide variety of devices across a wide rance of manufacturers. It's precisely because of that that tens of millions of consumers (if not more) have been able to:a) get a hold of itb) have a good option outside of Apple in the mobile phone space

Yet, despite all this, you think that this openness and all that it's enabled, isn't incredibly important.

Fine. But Apple itself partakes in bundleware all the time. And you've repeatedly given them a pass for it. As i mentioned before, i have absolutely no interest in the game center thingy on my iPhone. But i can't get rid of it. The best i can do is try to bury it in a folder somewhere. Why is bundleware from apple ok, but not ok from iPhone?

Because it's Apple's phone and it's the experience Apple if giving you by using their products. Do you also complain that Windows comes with Microsoft's calculator?

Quote:

Again, your argument is cirulcar. Apple is ok because they don't put on bundleware, because bundleware is defined as 'third party' and as apple isn't third party anything they add isn't bundleware. Your argument is predicated on the concept that it's impossible for Apple to do what you're talking about, while anyone who takes android is virtually guaranteed to do it.

What third-party software does a clean copy of Windows come with? What third-party software does a Dell installation of Windows come with? Get it now?

Um... wut? How on earth is that true? For someone who has no interest in google's software, why would i care about such limitations.

My only concern are the Android products that compete with Apple products.

Yes. Ergo you're already go in with your dwell blinders on. That's precisely rubin's point. Android's openness is what enables it to be taken and used for a multitude of purposes. That's a major reason why it's important. Thanks to android's openness it can be put on TVs (which may or may not compete with Apple), it can be put on slates (which will likely compete with Apple), and it can be put on tons of other things that will not compete with Apple. Rubin is saying it's important for precisely that reason, and you're saying "he's wrong, because i don't want to consider anything but Apple". It's bullshit dwell reasoning that draws you into invalid and irrelevant conclusions.

Quote:

I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand or how it relates to Rubin's rebuttal.

Yes. That much is *absolutely* clear. What's amazing is that you can't see this despite how many people have pointed it out to you.

Actually... that's not true. You can see it. You just chose to ignore it. Rubin's rebuttal very much is "because our openness means that android can go anywhere". Whereas you respond with "but a rebuttal is only valid if it says how android will compete with Apple's tech directly". Rubin's pointing out that he doens't care. Android already competes with Apple just fine, but its openness allows it to go more places and to be used for more things (you know... which consumers are about) than Apple's solutoin.

For example, Android's openness will allow for a multitude of devices to be built that go up against AppleTV. With Apple you will only have precisely what Apple builds. Bcause of this, consumers will have a wide variety of choices that can meet their particular needs, instead of only getting hte choice that Apple made for them. I realize you don't see choice as a good thing. However, it's the openness of Android that helps enable that choice, and that's what Rubin is pointing out. (succintly and cutely i might add).

Quote:

Quote:

There are enormous benefits of openness. That's one of the major reasons that Android has done so well. It's a great platform that anyone can take and transform into something useful for them and their devices. Want to create a new phone/slate/tv/netbook/toaster/whatever? Really, you can go off and do what he said. Go get the source and bang on it until it's what you want.

That's the pie-in-the-sky version of the story. Reality is, only multi-billion dollar companies are using Android for these purposes. They are getting access to code and resources that you and I cannot access (see Hewitt's rant). They are writing a bunch of propriety code, key to their version of Android and not contributing it back to the OHA. So, essentially Android is a bootstrap for them to write their closed, proprietary implementations. In the end, it's really no different than what Apple is doing with iOS. They used the Darwin code to bootstrap their development and piled a bunch of close, proprietary code on top of it.

Quote:

Who said anythign about doomed. You were complaining about what Rubin said, and what he said was spot on.

Best you can say is Rubin was technically correct but entirely deceitful

There was nothing deceitful about it. He's spot on on the entire thing.

Quote:

and misleading

It's not misleading at all.

Quote:

in how it applies to competition in the mobile market.

That's the fucking point dwell. FFS, why are you trying to be so deliberately obtuse. Rubin is saying that android's openness elevates it out of the mobile market. He's saying that job's critique is specious because it ignores how Android's openness goes far broader than just the mobile phone market. He's pointing out precisely what's allowed android to be adopted across dozens (if not hundreds) of devices, and allowed it to enter into several markets simulataneously where previously there was a large lack of quality platforms that could be used.

Quote:

Quote:

Ok Dwell. I would like to build a new TV platform. I would like to not have to build the OS myself. Can i legally get the source to Android and modify it so that it will work on my new TV platform? Yes/No. Can i legally get the source to iOS to use on my new TV platform Yes/No? Can i legally distribute my TV with Android on it? Yes/No. Can i legally distribute my TV with iOS on it? Yes/No.

You keep arguing the same stupid fucking point nobody cares about. Yes the Android core is open. No shit.

Praise the lord. For someone who previously said:

"It completely negates what he's saying. All of this talk of openness is great in theory"

Nope. Nothing was negated. All this talk of openness is great in practice (for the reasons i and other posters have given).

"Thanks for explaining just about everything that is wrong with Android in 160 characters or less, Andy. "

Nope. He explained what was right with it and precisely why it's doing so well.

" If you mean "open" as in Linux, no, no way"

Nope. You're still wrong. Hell, Android *is* linux. Just with a lot of extra layers on top that make it very suitable for CS devices.

"Androids open codebase nothing but a bullet point. "

Nope. You're still wrong. Android's open codebase is what has allowed it to be so wildly adopted. It isn't something insignificant, it's a major reason for it's success.

" it's quite obvious to me that when an Andy Rubin type gets up and extols the virtues of Android's "openness" he's full as about as much shit "

Nope. Still wrong. He's not full of shit. The openness of Android is a major thing that *should* be extolled. Well... actually, maybe it doesn't need to be extolled anymore. After all, everyone in the CE world knows this already, and most of them are already convinced. So there's no need to state the obvious anymore (except for you... since you just don't get it).

"All Meta did was rant with his typical angry bullshit. He didn't refute my point."

You're a chickenshit dwell. I addressed your points on numerous occasoins. That you don't like my refutations, and that you don't like that Rubin can be countering with a point greater than "here's how we compete on phones" is your *own* problem. Jobs is arguing "here's why openness is a problem for this particular issue" and rubin is responding with "and yet openness has value that far exceeds what's being said here because of these different issues". It's a perfectly valid response because Rubin is saying that Jobs is myopic. Jobs is doing what you are doing. Focusing on one tiny issue and ignoring everything else at the expense of it. Its specious and goes to show that you aren't interested in actually discussing the larger issue at all.

"I freely admit the Linux core is open. It's open software. My beef is that the Android platform is not open. Not even close."

Wrong. It is open, for the same reasons that the Linux core is open. (note, you now seem to accept this based on your latest statements).

You then quoted Joe hewitt in defense of yourself. But you failed to even recognize that Joe said this: "... I’d personally consider Android to fall solidly in the ‘Open’ spectrum — you can fork it and install it on whatever device you can get it running on, which can’t be said about iOS ..."

You then try misdirecting:

"That's not what I am arguing. My beef is that Rubin is claiming the enormous benefits of openness, as if the fact some nerd can compile the project somehow gives it a great advantage over Apple's offering. "

this is not what he's saying at all. And that you continue trotting this out despite the explanations that show otherwise means you're not interested in acutal debate. He's saying that the virtue comes from anyone being able to get to android and build it for themselves. It has nothing to do with nerds. It has to do with anyone. If htat's a manufacturer, fine. A carrier, fine. A university, fine. An individual, fine. A nerd, fine.

What's amazing is how contradictory your stance is. You claim something is not open, and then complain about the very things that demonstrate its openness. DCop pointed this out quite well.

Fine. But Apple itself partakes in bundleware all the time. And you've repeatedly given them a pass for it. As i mentioned before, i have absolutely no interest in the game center thingy on my iPhone. But i can't get rid of it. The best i can do is try to bury it in a folder somewhere. Why is bundleware from apple ok, but not ok from iPhone?

Because it's Apple's phone and it's the experience Apple if giving you by using their products. Do you also complain that Windows comes with Microsoft's calculator?

Yes. I've complained tremendously about unnecessary software in the stock install of Windows. I was a large proponent for pulling out much of it into the Windows Live suite.

I don't get what your point is. Are you saying i'm incorrect because i've consistently applied these principles to Windows, OSX, iOS and Android?

Personally, i'd love all these devices to be very clean from the start. However, i get that due to the openness of Android that manufacturers will add additional software that they think provides enough benefits to offset any costs. Precisely the same as Apple when they pick and chose what goes on hte machine. My personal preference is to go for lighter machines, but i accept that openness means that others can make other decisions on the matter.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, your argument is cirulcar. Apple is ok because they don't put on bundleware, because bundleware is defined as 'third party' and as apple isn't third party anything they add isn't bundleware. Your argument is predicated on the concept that it's impossible for Apple to do what you're talking about, while anyone who takes android is virtually guaranteed to do it.

What third-party software does a clean copy of Windows come with? What third-party software does a Dell installation of Windows come with? Get it now?

yes. I get that you're making the same ciruclar argument. repeating it doesn't change that.

What's amazing is how contradictory your stance is. You claim something is not open, and then complain about the very things that demonstrate its openness.

Because you are ignoring, misquoting and misdirecting my entire argument. Who gives a flying fuck that Google open sourced a bunch of code that vendors can use to introduce closed, proprietary devices running on a closed, proprietary ecosystem.

What's amazing is how contradictory your stance is. You claim something is not open, and then complain about the very things that demonstrate its openness.

Who gives a flying fuck that Google open sourced a bunch of code that vendors can use

A LOT OF FUCKING PEOPLE.

For one, the hardware manfacturers certainly give a shit. Android is a viable platform for them to build off of instead of having to create something on their own. For another, consumers care because it provides them with a wealth of good CE devices across a large and evergrowing spectrum of devices.

FFS dwell, it's like you stick your head in the sand and go "lalalalala, i can't hear you". People have pointed out this to you no less than 5 times in the thread and you're *STILL* harping on that no one cares about this.

Hell, i'll even give the cynical argument. People care a great deal that googled opened this up because there is the potential for billions to be made in this market. If Google had not done this there would be a lot fewer options and both manufacturers and consumers would be left with poorer choices and a myriad of less capable devices to use. Thanks to openness we have a world that's a lot better than that, and that's something that MANY care about.

Thanks to Android's openness, my sister has an android. And because of that openness she now has a mobile device that works very nicely and gives her the features that she wants in a slick package. That would likely not have been possible if Android were not open.

FFS dwell, i get your fucking argument. I've addressed in on point as to why i think it's *wrong*. You repeating it doesn't change anything. But hey, let's get on this merrygoround one more time.

Your claim is that rubin wsa speaking bullshit when he responded as he did to the claims of openness. However, your belief is predicated on the idea that rubin was talking about precisely what you are talking about. However, as I and others hav epointed out, rubin wasn't talking about that. Instead, rubin was talking about the greater value brought about by openness. You keep responding with "but but but... for the nascar app example, openness doesn't help!!!".

WHO GIVES A FUCK. That's not what rubin was talking about. You're attacking a strawman of your own creation. Rubin was talking about how openness allows anyone access to the source which allows android to be taken and adopted across the industry across an eveyr growing range of CE devices. Your blubbering that it doesn't help with one case is not a valid argument against rubins point.

I don't know hy i'm even bothering to state this again. You'll just go back to saying that rubin was deceitful (even though he didn't put forth the argument you are calling him deceitful for).

Android is a viable platform for them to build off of instead of having to create something on their own.

It's not just the smart-phone manufacturers who benefit; when Android is viable at feature-phone price levels, which isn't that far away, manufacturers will be able to dump the junk operating systems that such phones currently run. It will make product development much simpler for the manufacturers (basically if the chipset runs Linux you are good to go), and vastly improve the capability of said cheap phones.

There are some cracking $150 Android phones now, and a few phones are closing on the $100 level, it will be interesting to see how far down the range Android can go. In time we might see a $50 smart-phone, and the sales of such devices could be staggering.

Rubin) Statement X.Dwell) Rubin is full of shit. Look at how he lied about Y.Meta) Rubin didn't say anythign about Y. He talked about X.Dwell) He's deceitful and full of marketing speak**. Look at Y!Meta) Again, he's not talking about Y. What he's saying is that X brings around an enormous amount of value, and that value can plainly be seen if you actually look at the market.Dwell) Who cares about X. I only care about Y!! Ergo Rubin is full of shit.Meta) Actually, a whole hell of a lot of people care about X. And it's X that has brought a tremendous amonut of value to people.Dwell) I don't care. I only care about Y, ergo Rubin is a turd.Meta) ...

I really don't get you. Your obstinance in debates is absolutely frightening dwell. It's like you rattle of a response without even reading or stopping to consider that you might be wrong or that your interpretation of things may not be the one true gospel. Rubin tweets and you seem to think that it can only mean one thing. You then attack that interpretation (hostily i might add) unceasingly without even bothering to listen or consider that there may be other more valid interpretations that make a ton of sense.

---

** Amazing how a tweet about git and repo sync becomes marketing speak!

Schpyder advanced this argument, and I pointed out to him that it was absurd, and he seems to have concurred, or at least let it go. I think my reply to him neatly answers your question as well, so I will repeat myself:

Quote:

So essentially what you believe is that if one cannot program, one cannot benefit from open source development done by others, is that correct? Like if I didn't write linux, I can't use it?

That is what you're arguing right? That users don't benefit from being open unless they write code. Clearly this is absurd, I've never written a line of Linux code in my life, but I benefit from Linux every time I turn on my Android phone. Being open is an advantage to users because it enables people to write code for them to use, whereas if someone wants to improve the Windows Phone 7 kernel, they can screw off.

And in fact I am running a custom kernel on my phone that extends battery life. I've never written a line of that code, and I'm too lazy to setup the Android dev tools right now, but still my battery life is extended This helps people who don't mod their hardware too. I've written open source code that ended up in commercial products. Again, if you bought one of a few pieces of hardware out there, then you got my code and benefited, even though you are not me.

Of course theres downsides too, but clearly you cannot deny that any upside exists. They certainly do.

Though I found Schpyder comments interesting, our opinions where not the same.

Your holistic idealism of an opensource programmer vs. a programmer paid by Microsoft is irrelevant to me, and for the record my personal opinion is that you get better work from someone if you pay them.

God could have written the code on stone tablets, but all I am concerned with is how the end product functions; the value I place on the product is only in the openness and flexibility of the finished product. If the OEM and the carrier work to produce a poor product the product is poor regardless of the value of the source code that may sit in some repository.

redleader wrote:

Sifaka wrote:

Retarded is a specific mental disability and only people with this disability can say things that are retarded;

Really? Better tell Oxford:

N. Amer. slang. Stupid, silly; foolish; pathetic

They're all confused about how the English language works! Or maybe you just misread what I wrote and shouldn't get all bent out of shape about it

Sifaka wrote:

therefore, no I did not figure out that you did not call me a retard. I accepted you were an idiot and left it at that.

For what its worth, I actually do think you're retarded because you advance silly arguments and overreact to mild criticism. I just didn't want to be so impolite before.

Your manner is of a school yard bully, so I guess the best I should have expected from you is childish slang. Unfortunately I have a hard time letting someone denigrate people with mental disabilities, so instead I will ask you to grow the fuck up.

Android is a viable platform for them to build off of instead of having to create something on their own.

It's not just the smart-phone manufacturers who benefit; when Android is viable at feature-phone price levels, which isn't that far away, manufacturers will be able to dump the junk operating systems that such phones currently run. It will make product development much simpler for the manufacturers (basically if the chipset runs Linux you are good to go), and vastly improve the capability of said cheap phones.

There are some cracking $150 Android phones now, and a few phones are closing on the $100 level, it will be interesting to see how far down the range Android can go. In time we might see a $50 smart-phone, and the sales of such devices could be staggering.

WTF are you smoking. NO one gives a shit about any of that.

.........

Oh wait. I mean the exact opposite of the above. A lot of people care a great deal about that. And it's precisely becauese of androids openness that its' possible in the majorly short amount of time that Google's been in this game. But hey... maybe dwell's right "Who gives a flying fuck that Google open sourced a bunch of code ... ?" I really can't think of anyone that would care about that

For one, the hardware manfacturers certainly give a shit. Android is a viable platform for them to build off of instead of having to create something on their own.

Build closed, proprietary systems off of. Like the Android platform. I get that.

Quote:

For another, consumers care because it provides them with a wealth of good CE devices across a large and evergrowing spectrum of devices.

You're confusing open in the OSS sense with open in the Windows sense.

Quote:

FFS dwell, it's like you stick your head in the sand and go "lalalalala, i can't hear you". People have pointed out this to you no less than 5 times in the thread and you're *STILL* harping on that no one cares about this.

I can say the same for you.

Quote:

Hell, i'll even give the cynical argument. People care a great deal that googled opened this up because there is the potential for billions to be made in this market. If Google had not done this there would be a lot fewer options and both manufacturers and consumers would be left with poorer choices and a myriad of less capable devices to use. Thanks to openness we have a world that's a lot better than that, and that's something that MANY care about.

That's a false statement. If Android were not around some other OS, open or closed would take it's place. Android's openness has nothing to do with the demand for smartphones. The fact that Android has an open codebase has nothing to do with the number of disparate devices out there. We had feature phones running on myriad devices long before Android came along.

There are some cracking $150 Android phones now, and a few phones are closing on the $100 level, it will be interesting to see how far down the range Android can go. In time we might see a $50 smart-phone, and the sales of such devices could be staggering.

[...]

A lot of people care a great deal about that. And it's precisely becauese of androids openness that its' possible in the majorly short amount of time that Google's been in this game.

Unfounded and not provable. Anyone of the big tech players have the funds to create an operating system and give it away for free. Opensource was just one of the many possible ways to get there. [Edit: Dwell just posted this first, but the point still stands so I will leave it]

But on the record of a $100 smartphone (no subsidy), would you buy it and use it for anything more then a toy? I for one doubt seriously that component prices have dropped low enough to make this reality, but I await Ev9_tarantula or yourself to link to one of these mythical devices.

For one, the hardware manfacturers certainly give a shit. Android is a viable platform for them to build off of instead of having to create something on their own.

Build closed, proprietary systems off of. Like the Android platform. I get that.

Ergo that openness is extremely important and something that many care about. I'm glad that you can finally agree on this.

Quote:

Quote:

For another, consumers care because it provides them with a wealth of good CE devices across a large and evergrowing spectrum of devices.

You're confusing open in the OSS sense with open in the Windows sense.

No. I'm using it in the OSS sense. That you still dont' get this is mindboggling. What do you think Tivo is Dwell? It's a closed box that runs the open linux stack. Tivo is using linux in precisely the way that the open linux was licensed for. Android is even more open in that it's Apache not GPL and as such can be used for even more purposes. It's used just as the OSS license was intended to be used and it remains completely open and available for others to use as they wish.

JUST LIKE LINUX AND JUST LIKE MOST OSS OUT THERE.

It's nothing like Windows in that you can't do anything with Windows if you want to run it on your own hardware and it doesn't meet your needs and it doesn't provide a specific extensibility point for your needs. You need MS to go in and make the changes for you.

Android is open in the OSS and has a license that guarantees that.

Quote:

Quote:

FFS dwell, it's like you stick your head in the sand and go "lalalalala, i can't hear you". People have pointed out this to you no less than 5 times in the thread and you're *STILL* harping on that no one cares about this.

I can say the same for you.

really? Where have i not actually addressed your argument? I've pointed out specifically why your argument is invalid because its predicated on your undefended interpretation of what Rubin said. You have not addressed that at all.

Quote:

Quote:

Hell, i'll even give the cynical argument. People care a great deal that googled opened this up because there is the potential for billions to be made in this market. If Google had not done this there would be a lot fewer options and both manufacturers and consumers would be left with poorer choices and a myriad of less capable devices to use. Thanks to openness we have a world that's a lot better than that, and that's something that MANY care about.

That's a false statement. If Android were not around some other OS, open or closed would take it's place.

I actually don't believe that that's the case. I think it's because of android's openness that it's gotten such broad reach and has been able to be adopted so quickly and so certainly by so many companies. But we'll see in the future with Wp7. I absolutely expect Wp7 to be late to every platform that Android is adopted to because of companies having to wait on Microsoft due to the closed nature of that platform.

You're welcome to disagree, but i think the explosive growth and widespread adoption of android are in great part due to openness.

Quote:

Android's openness has nothing to do with the demand for smartphones. The fact that Android has an open codebase has nothing to do with the number of disparate devices out there.

I disagree entirely. Android's openness is precisely why it could be adopted as a viable smartphone OS for so many manufacturers that needed a viable OS and didn't have the expertise to build one themselves.

Quote:

We had feature phones running on myriad devices long before Android came along.

Um yes. And they were shitty. That's my point. "If Google had not done this there would be a lot fewer options and both manufacturers and consumers would be left with poorer choices and a myriad of less capable devices to use."

I said "and a myriad of less capable devices to use". And now you're agreeing with me by saying that we had a myriad of different devices before??

Quote:

Quote:

That would likely not have been possible if Android were not open.

Yes it would have.

Then you and i see things very differently. If i'm a TV maker and i want a great platform to put on my TV... what are my options dwell?

What about if i'm making a slate? What are my options?

You say that there are other possibilities for manufacturers to go with... so please enumerate them.

I disagree entirely. Android's openness is precisely why it could be adopted as a viable smartphone OS for so many manufacturers that needed a viable OS and didn't have the expertise to build one themselves.

Where are the bounds of this argument? Why is Symbian, another opensource operating system, losing marketshare? Is WP7 doomed because it is not opensource?

I disagree entirely. Android's openness is precisely why it could be adopted as a viable smartphone OS for so many manufacturers that needed a viable OS and didn't have the expertise to build one themselves.

Where are the bounds of this argument? Why is Symbian, another opensource operating system, losing marketshare? Is WP7 doomed because it is not opensource?

Symbian doesn't have the force of Google behind it, therefore it's not as cool.

Mostly because Symbian Sucks. The N900, a top tier phone by anyone's standards, is resistive and powered by Maemo. The N8, their current Symbian flagship, runs on a 680MHz ARM11 CPU, one generation behind.

Except your device is really not worth a damn to anyone but yourself if you can't meet Google's Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition and agree to bundle Google's closed software and market. What use is an Android device to the masses if it can't access Google's services, the Market in particular?

I disagree entirely. Android's openness is precisely why it could be adopted as a viable smartphone OS for so many manufacturers that needed a viable OS and didn't have the expertise to build one themselves.

Where are the bounds of this argument? Why is Symbian, another opensource operating system, losing marketshare? Is WP7 doomed because it is not opensource?

Symbian doesn't have the force of Google behind it, therefore it's not as cool.